Jenny L. Daugherty1 and Rodney L. Custer2
1Purdue University, 2Black Hills State University
ABSTRACT
Professional development is crucially important for effective integration of engineering into the high school classroom. With many initiatives still in their infancy, little is known about the current status of secondary level teacher professional development in engineering, both in terms of research and practice. This chapter presents the results of a qualitative, descriptive meta-synthesis of findings from 23 studies focused on secondary level engineering teacher professional development. The authors identified projects using key word searches within academic databases and online. The criteria for inclusion were (a) a primary focus on teacher professional development in engineering at the secondary level, (b) the availability of a published report in a peer-reviewed journal, in the American Society for Engineering Education conference proceedings, or on the National Center for Engineering and Technology Education’s website, and (c) a publication date between 2005 and 2010. Based on this meta-synthesis, several themes are presented. For example, almost all of the studies used evaluation or qualitative research designs focused on small groups of teachers and their self-reports of changes in their knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes. The dominant model of engineering professional development is training, and the content appears to vary greatly from a narrow focus on an area of technology (sensors) to a broader focus on the disciplinary field of engineering. In addition to a discussion of these themes, the chapter includes a synthesis of the work conducted by the authors in secondary teacher professional development.
Engineering at the K–12 level aims to provide students with authentic learning contexts largely centered on design, analysis, and troubleshooting (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008). Several curriculum projects have emerged to infuse engineering into K–12 classrooms. For example, two of the largest, and perhaps well-known, projects are Engineering is Elementary (focused at the elementary level) and Project Lead the Way (focused at the middle and high school levels). These and similar initiatives have associated teacher professional development programs; however, as of yet, few empirical studies have been published documenting the impact of the teacher professional development on either teacher or student learning (Brophy et al., 2008). There is a great need to build an empirical base from which to refine approaches to curriculum, instruction, and professional development if engineering is to maintain a presence in schools nationwide.
In particular, important to the integration of engineering into the K–12 curriculum is the development of teachers’ knowledge and capabilities around engineering (Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009). Given the lack of pre-service teacher preparation in engineering content, professional development is crucially important for effective integration into the high school classroom. Improving teacher quality through teacher professional development is a proven educational reform strategy (Borko, 2004; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Birman, 2002). Numerous initiatives, whether policy driven, such as new state certification tests, or funded professional development programs focused on such things as improving teachers’ content knowledge, have emerged nationwide (Parise & Spillane, 2010). Teachers participate in such initiatives at an incredibly high rate. The National Center for Education Statistics (2005) found that 99% of teachers in 1999–2000 reported participating in professional development activities over the past year.
Much has been written, however, about the uneven quality and effectiveness of teacher professional development, particularly in mathematics, science, and literacy (Borko, 2004). Although research has documented the features of effective professional development, (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001; Supovitz, Mayer, & Kahle, 2000), “professional development in the United States consists of a hodgepodge of providers, formats, philosophies, and content” (Hill, 2007, p. 114), with few teachers attending quality programs (Hill, 2007). Is this true of efforts in engineering teacher professional development at the secondary level?
With many initiatives still in their infancy in terms of research (and design for that matter), little is known about the current status of secondary level teacher professional development in engineering and how it aligns with effective features documented in the research literature. It is important to inform future efforts by gleaning the lessons learned from current practice. This chapter presents the results of a qualitative, descriptive meta-synthesis of findings from multiple studies focused on secondary level engineering teacher professional development. Included is a discussion of major themes present in the studies, drawing from the work conducted by the authors in secondary engineering education and teacher professional development.
Teacher professional development includes a variety of formats and experiences, from formal learning opportunities, such as summer institutes and graduate coursework, to on-the-job learning opportunities, such as peer observations and advice on instruction (Parise & Spillane, 2010). The majority of teachers participate in more formal, traditional training types of experiences, which include workshops, special courses, graduate coursework, and in-service days or conferences (Hill, 2007; NCES, 2005). However, these types of experiences are argued to be lower quality and less effective in affecting teachers’ practice long-term (Parise & Spillane, 2010). There is an increasing demand for more high-quality, reform-oriented professional development that directly affects student learning and justifies the tremendous expenditures that are being devoted to it (Evans, 2002).
Despite the heavy involvement in lower quality experiences and the many barriers to implementation faced by teachers (Johnson, 2006), there continues to be “great faith among school reformers and education researchers that augmenting the learning opportunities of practicing teachers will enhance teacher performance and lead to improved student outcomes” (Parise & Spillane, 2010, p. 324). According to Hill (2007), numerous studies over the past 25 years have shown that increased teacher learning can lead to improved student outcomes. More recently, researchers have studied professional development programs and identified features of effective professional development (Desimone et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001; Guskey, 2003; Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). Grouped together these features include (a) a focus on subject-matter content, (b) a connection to how students learn the specific content, (c) extended duration, (d) coherence to and alignment with the instructional goals, school improvement efforts, and curriculum materials, and (e) collective participation of entire schools in active learning opportunities.
Although some studies have sought to understand the connections between the professional development experience, changes in teacher’s practice (Mouza, 2009), and student achievement (Wallace, 2009), much work is still needed. As Fishman, Marx, Best, and Tal (2003) argued, a body of research-based knowledge on teacher professional development will best result from studies that demonstrate efficacy of approaches across a range of contexts. While much of the research on teacher professional development has been in mathematics and science education, and parallels can be drawn across these disciplines to engineering, research specific to engineering professional development is needed to better inform it as its own unique context.
The context of K–12 engineering is encompassed in a larger impetus to prepare more students, teachers, and practitioners for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers (Brophy et al., 2008; Kuenzi, 2008). Beyond these larger concerns, many educators and researchers have argued that engineering, and specifically engineering design, provides an authentic base for students to apply mathematics and science concepts, as well as develop real-world problem-solving and critical-thinking skills (Katehi et al., 2009; Lewis, 2005; Wicklein, 2006). K–12 engineering programs have emerged across the country, each typically with an associated teacher professional development dimension (Brophy et al., 2008). As of yet, few research studies have been published documenting the impact of engineering education on either teacher or student learning. An important contribution of this chapter is to glean the literature for published studies specifically on teacher professional development at the secondary level to identify themes and recommendations for future work in this area.
STATUS OF RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
This portion of the chapter attempts to understand the current status of engineering professional development. This work draws from a framework outlining the design and delivery features of professional development. Guskey and Sparks (1996) offered and the National Staff Development Council (2001) echoed a framework that groups design and delivery principles into three categories: (a) context, (b) process, and (c) content. The context of professional development is composed of such features as the individuals involved, the time and place, and the reason or rationale for the professional development. The process dimension includes the delivery format and instructional strategies. The content of the professional development are the knowledge, skills, and abilities to be developed as a result of the experience. This framework provides a structure for analyzing professional development, in that the design decisions encompass the orientation and beliefs of the professional development providers and highlight the elements that the teachers experience (Park Rogers, Abell, Marra, Arbaugh, Hutchins, & Cole, 2010). Decisions concerning the design of professional development are also related to the desired outcomes identified during the planning process (Joyce & Showers, 2002). Given the focus on understanding the context, process, and content of engineering teacher professional development, the authors addressed the following questions:
1. What is the status of engineering-oriented teacher professional development at the secondary level across these three dimensions: context, process, and content?
2. What are the apparent gaps in engineering-oriented teacher professional development?
Methodological considerations
This section outlines a descriptive meta-synthesis of findings from multiple project reports focused on secondary level (grades 9–12) engineering teacher professional development in the United States (Schreiber, Crooks, & Stern, 1997). The authors identified projects using key word searches (i.e., “engineering teacher professional development”) within electronic academic databases and online. The criteria for inclusion in the meta-synthesis were (a) a primary emphasis on teacher professional development in engineering at the secondary level (grades 9–12), (b) the availability of a published report in a peer-reviewed journal, in the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) conference proceedings, or on the National Center for Engineering and Technology Education’s (NCETE) website, and (c) a publication date between 2005 and 2010.
In addition to searches of online databases, such as Academic Search Premier and JSTOR, the decision to focus on the ASEE conference proceedings and NCETE’s website was due to their research focus on engineering education. ASEE is a professional association focused on engineering education across the kindergarten-to-graduate school spectrum. The conference proceedings are peer-reviewed and available electronically. NCETE is the only Center for Learning and Teaching funded through the National Science Foundation (NSF) that focuses on K–12 engineering education. NCETE’s primary goal has been to conduct research on engineering education at the secondary level with reports available online. The parameter of publication dates between 2005 and 2010 was intended to focus on the most “current work,” as well as provide enough studies for analysis without being too cumbersome. These search criteria and processes yielded 23 studies, listed in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1. Secondary level engineering teacher professional development published studies.
Each study was read and analyzed across the following dimensions: research design, methods, number of subjects/participants included in the study, purpose of study (research questions), primary findings, length of the professional development, professional development model or approach, goals/expected outcomes of professional development, leaders and/or professional development providers, disciplinary area of teachers, duration, subject matter focus, and engineering content. Information directly from the study was copied into a table to support the characterization of the study across these dimensions. This information was then used to code each study’s research design, level of analysis, number included in analysis, and primary focus; the professional development program’s leadership; disciplinary areas of teachers; and the program’s model or approach to professional development, instructional approaches, major content focus, and engineering content.
RESULTS
This chapter offers a meta-synthesis of findings as an analysis of engineering professional development design at the secondary level. Of the 23 studies, 13 used an evaluation research design, 9 were qualitative studies, and one reported a needs assessment survey. Although many of the studies included an emphasis on qualitative evaluation methods, all studies that included evaluation as a part of their research design were categorized as evaluation. Qualitative studies were categorized as such when the authors indicated that the study used qualitative measures to address research questions without a determination of value or worth. Many of the qualitative studies were case studies of professional development programs. Others were qualitative analysis of teachers’ involvement, changes, or learning based on their involvement in the professional development. One of the studies reported the quantitative and qualitative results from a needs assessment survey that was administered to an organization’s membership.
The studies were analyzed by (a) their level of analysis (program, teachers, and organization members), and (b) the number included in the analysis (programs and teachers). Eight of the studies were focused at the program level, and data were collected across multiple sources, often including teachers, professional development providers, counselors, and/or students. The focus of the study was often on determining the effectiveness or evaluating the impact of the program by collecting information from multiple data points. Fifteen of the studies included only data from teachers as a measure of program evaluation or research on an aspect of teacher learning or outcomes. Of the 15 studies, 8 collected data from 8 teachers or fewer; 3 studies collected data from 20 to 30 teachers; 2 studies collected from data from 80–90 teachers, and 2 studies did not specify the number of teachers from which data was collected. One of the studies collected data from 1,067 organization members, which included teachers, professors, counselors, and administrators.
The primary focus of the studies (not necessarily the focus or goals of the entire professional development program) was identified and major themes emerged across all 23 studies, as shown in Table 12.2. Most of the nine studies that documented the impact of the professional development on teachers were pre/post self-report surveys, where the teacher indicated their understanding or awareness. Five of the studies analyzed the design of the professional development, interviewing teachers and professional development providers and/or observing the instruction. Three of the studies focused solely on the teachers’ satisfaction with the professional development experience. Two of the studies were more comprehensive, investigating the impact of the professional development on the teachers’ and their students’ learning. Two other studies asked teachers about implementation; one focused on teachers’ potential to implement, and the other focused on whether teachers had implemented. One of the studies explored the teachers’ abilities to develop lessons, and another study was focused on documenting the professional development needs of teachers.
Table 12.2. Primary focus of the studies.
| Focus of the study | Number of studies |
| Impact on teachers’ knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes | 9 |
| PD design | 5 |
| Teachers’ satisfaction | 3 |
| Impact on teachers’ knowledge and student learning | 2 |
| Impact on teachers’ instruction (potential/actual classroom implementation) | 2 |
| Lesson design/development | 1 |
| Teachers’ needs | 1 |
In addition to analyzing the studies in terms of research design and focus, the professional development programs described in the studies were analyzed across the three dimensions of the chapter’s theoretical framework: (a) context, (b) process, and (c) content. Due to the fact that few of the studies thoroughly described the context within which the professional development resided, this was analyzed through the professional development program’s leadership and teachers’ disciplinary areas. The process was identified in the program’s model, instructional approaches, and duration. The content of the professional development was included in the major content focus, as well as in an investigation of the engineering content. Because of the difficulty of attributing one aspect of the context, process, and content to each multifaceted study, major themes across these dimensions were gleaned and reflected on by the authors in order to characterize the nature of the studies across these dimensions.
Not all of programs specified their leadership; in those cases, inferences were made based on the study’s authorship. The majority of the professional development programs’ leadership were university faculty, with most representing engineering fields, as well as technology, science, and mathematics education professors. One project included a humanities and social science professor, and another project included a counseling psychology professor. A few of the projects included a university administrator (Associate Dean) and community college faculty as leaders. Four of the projects were partnerships with K–12 school districts, but the inclusion of K–12 teachers, principals, or other administrators as project leaders was not specified. The disciplinary areas of the teachers included science, technology, and mathematics. Most of the programs contained a representation of teachers across two or all three of these areas.
The professional development type pursued by the projects was also identified. Thirteen of the studies described workshops or institutes. The majority of these programs (and in most of the other professional development types) included lectures, demonstrations, and hands-on activities as primary instructional approaches. Four of the studies described partnerships, with most emphasizing learning communities. Three of the studies described college courses, which included an emphasis on reflective discussions and homework assignments. And three of the studies did not provide any information on the type of professional development used by the project under study. The duration of the professional development ranged across all of the projects. The longest duration was week-long summer institutes with academic year follow-up for three years. The shortest duration was two days. Most of the projects fell in between, with the typical format being two weeks in the summer (some with academic year follow-up) and semester long courses.
Major themes in terms of the content of the professional development were identified. Many of the projects focused on technology, such as sensors, robotics, and emerging technologies (nanotechnology, information and communication, etc.), as important content. Mathematical reasoning, scientific inquiry, and engineering design were also major content areas of most of the projects. Finally, gender equity issues within science and engineering was another focus in a few of the projects. A few of the projects included a focus on curriculum development, and one of the projects was devoted to developing teachers’ research skills in engineering. In terms of specifying engineering content, few of the studies included a detailed description, apart from a focus on design. Some did specify a focus on the tools and principles of engineering. A few of the projects targeted specific engineering concepts, including constraints, optimization, analysis, and function.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the meta-synthesis and the authors’ work, impressions concerning the status of secondary level engineering professional development are made. In addition, potential gaps in the practice of engineering teacher professional development in comparison to documented effective practices are reflected upon. It is important to note that much of the work in K–12 engineering education is relatively new and thus it is not surprising that so few studies were identified and much of the research work is preliminary. This chapter is intended to further the development of research and practice efforts within engineering teacher professional development.
Status of secondary level engineering professional development
The first research question focuses on the status of engineering professional development at the secondary level across context, process, and content. Several threads are apparent relative to these dimensions. The context of engineering teacher professional development appears to be STEM-wide, with the dominance of engineering faculty and science, mathematics, and technology education faculty as project leaders and the disciplinary diversity of the participating teachers. The dominant model of engineering professional development is training, with a focus on lectures and hands-on activities. The content of engineering professional development appears to vary greatly from a narrow focus on an area of technology (e.g., sensors) to a broader focus on the disciplinary field of engineering. The specific engineering content appears largely undefined, with a strong focus on the design process.
Context
The majority of the professional development programs’ leadership were university faculty, with representation from the engineering fields, as well as technology, science, and mathematics education. Thus the leaders are coming to engineering professional development from both education and engineering communities, which tend to represent distinctly different academic cultures, both in terms of content and pedagogy. Some projects have leaders representing both communities and may have reconciled these different perspectives, and other projects appear to be firmly rooted in one or the other. This issue particularly emerged in the Daugherty (2009) study, where two distinct goals were apparent. One goal can be characterized as “pre-vocational,” where the purpose is to recruit and provide students with a strong academic foundation for collegiate level engineering, as well as to encourage more diverse students into engineering disciplines. Many of the projects with these types of goals, particularly outreach efforts, had engineering faculty as project leaders. The second goal is to provide “literacy level education,” so that all students can live and work in a technologically designed world. This approach is more consistently present within the technology education community and aligns with the Standards for Technological Literacy (ITEA, 2000/2002).
Although very few of the studies analyzed in this chapter explicitly explored this contextual aspect of secondary level engineering education, the presence of both engineering and education faculty in leadership roles for the projects indicates its relevance to secondary level engineering professional development. It is important to understand the broader goals of engineering education as it affects not only the design of the professional development, but also curriculum and instruction. Individuals engaged in standards development, curriculum, teacher pre-service education, and teacher professional development need to be very clear about where they are situating their work between these two different philosophical perspectives. While some blend of the two perspectives is clearly possible and, in many cases, desirable, what students and teachers are expected to know and be able to do related to engineering should be made explicit.
Another contextual thread that was apparent across the research is the diverse disciplinary backgrounds of teachers participating in secondary level engineering professional development. As K–12 engineering struggles to find its niche within the schools, various engineering-oriented programs attract teachers representing a broad spectrum of mathematics, science, and technology backgrounds. This diversity tends to complicate professional development since teachers’ backgrounds, capabilities, and perspectives vary across and within these academic areas, requiring programs to be flexible enough to meet the diversity of teachers’ needs, but also specific enough to address content area standards and related pedagogies. Most of the studies did not explicitly address this issue and its implications for professional development. However, this appears to be an important issue if engineering education is to develop a strong presence in schools.
Process
Consistent with the authors’ work documenting secondary level engineering professional development, most of the professional development described in the studies analyzed for this chapter used training models, including institutes, workshops, and college courses. Training is associated with a perspective of teaching as a technical skill and equated with the development of competence in specific behaviors (Gordon, 2004). Training experiences, however, have not shown evidence of improving teacher’s practice (Parise & Spillane, 2010), which is largely attributed to their short duration and limited follow-up (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). The authors’ work noted a predominance of training models but also noted that many of the programs were rooted in curriculum development efforts (Daugherty, 2009; Daugherty & Custer, 2010). However, this did not appear to be a thread in the studies analyzed for this chapter.
Also documented in the studies were partnership approaches or collaborative models. These models embrace documented effective practices in connecting the professional development experience with the teachers’ local school context. Most of these collaborative models were partnerships between the university and school district. The underlying assumptions of these models are that the context of teachers’ work provides important content for the professional development; collegiality, cooperation, and communication are valued by the partners; and quality education is a community responsibility requiring collaboration (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2001). An often used approach within this model, and one noted in a few of the studies, was the use of learning communities or teams of teachers from the same school working together to implement change (Gordon, 2004). However, there were relatively few of the projects that pursued such a model.
No matter the model, the programs’ instructional approach included an emphasis on lectures, demonstrations, and hands-on activities. This approach appears consistent with both typical engineering and education approaches to teaching. The emphasis on handson activities is also consistent in the authors’ work. This activity orientation can be viewed from at least two perspectives. First, the process of engineering design is inherently active and engaged with finding solutions to authentic, real-world problems. As a consequence, it makes good sense to engage students (and teachers) with engineering by providing them with the opportunity to participate in design-related activities. But equally important is to provide opportunities for reflection to discuss what has been learned as a result of engaging in the activity.
Content
The primary content themes centered on technology, specifically sensors, robotics, and emerging technologies (nanotechnology, information and communication, etc.); mathematical reasoning; scientific inquiry; and engineering design. This is not surprising given the interdisciplinary nature of engineering and the participation of science, mathematics, and technology teachers in engineering professional development. Another content focus was gender equity within engineering, which is also not surprising given the goals of many of the projects to recruit more diverse students into the engineering pipeline. In addition, a few of the projects included a focus on curriculum development and research skills, both of which align with typical needs of teachers.
In terms of specifying engineering content, few of the studies included a detailed description. This is consistent with the authors’ work. A distinct lack of emphasis on content and concepts was observed in the Daugherty and Custer (2010) study. Most of the studies indicated a focus on the design process. The tendency is to view engineering as a process, which in turn tends to deemphasize its broader conceptual dimensions. Thus, engagement with activities can be viewed as inherently positive and meaningful (e.g., if students are engaged in authentic engineering design activities, then they must be learning something meaningful about engineering). The authors’ work with professional development has detected a distinct lack of grounding in identified, core engineering concepts as a foundation for either curriculum or professional development. Based on this finding, the authors completed a study designed to identify an appropriate conceptual base for secondary level engineering (Custer, Daugherty, & Meyer, 2010).
Gaps in practice
Given the themes observed in the studies analyzed for this chapter and the authors’ work, distinct gaps are apparent between current engineering professional development practice and emerging needs, trends, and best practices. These gaps include a lack of an engineering conceptual base and little overt attention to the diversity of the teachers participating in the professional development. These are closely connected with the broader “current status” or context of K–12 engineering and contain both content and process dimensions.
As noted previously, the process-based nature of engineering design connected with the activity-oriented nature of engineering professional development combine to deemphasize a conceptual base for engineering at the pre-collegiate level. The problem is exacerbated by the conceptual complexity of engineering content, which includes science, mathematics, and technology concepts, concepts specific to the various engineering domains, and general concepts that span the engineering disciplines (Katehi et al., 2009). Further complicating the conceptual base is the contextual nature of K–12 engineering, with differing goals as described above. However, authors have noted the importance of developing teachers’ content knowledge through teacher professional development (Birman, Desimone, Porter, & Garet, 2000; Desimone et al., 2002; Loucks-Horsley et al., 2003); thus attention should be paid to defining a clear conceptual base for teacher learning.
Several studies have been conducted in recent years to address this issue (Custer, Daugherty, & Meyer, 2010; Hacker, de Vries, & Rossouw, 2009; Harris & Rogers, 2008). The authors’ study combined an extensive analysis of documents with focus groups to identify a set of core engineering concepts deemed appropriate for secondary level engineering education. The study yielded a set of 13 core concepts (e.g., systems, trade-offs, optimization, design, modeling, visualization), along with an associated set of issues. Silk and Schunn (2008), in their review of the literature, indicated that the concepts that are common to most areas of engineering include structure-behavior-function, trade-offs, constraints, optimization, system, subsystem, and control. Other studies that have been conducted in this area (e.g., Dearing & Daugherty, 2004; Childress & Rhodes, 2008) have tended to focus more broadly and have therefore identified skills as well (e.g., teamwork, interpersonal dynamics, organizational ability). Collectively, these studies are converging to form a conceptual foundation for engineering at the secondary level that should help drive teacher professional development in this area.
A second gap focuses on the lack of attention to the diversity of the teachers’ backgrounds and abilities. This includes not only different levels of STEM knowledge, but also different educational and pedagogical backgrounds. For example, from the perspective of technology education and regarding mathematics knowledge, McAlister (2005) conducted a survey of 44 technology teacher education pre-service programs and found that only 17% of teachers had completed mathematics requirements at a level required to teach Project Lead the Way courses. At the same time, some secondary level engineering professional development workshops attract teachers with mathematics and science teacher certifications. Thus, the mathematics and science backgrounds of these teachers tend to be sufficient. The lack of attention to these differences might detract from the learning for all of the teachers involved. Also, many teachers struggle with the nature of engineering design, which is inherently open-ended. They lack the pedagogical skills needed to facilitate instruction in situations that do not yield a single correct answer and where content from more than one discipline is needed in order to solve design problems (Benenson & Neujahr, 2007). These pedagogical needs should be met in the professional development experience as well.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations for research and practice are based on the analysis of the studies and the authors’ work, as well as outcomes from two symposia funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to examine issues associated specifically with secondary level engineering education. The first symposium, conducted in 2007, convened a group of professionals, including curriculum developers, state supervisors, cognitive science experts, professional developers, content experts, and teachers, to discuss K–12 engineering education. This group generated recommendations, among which were the need for better research, curriculum development, and collaboration among the STEM disciplines; the need for models of professional development; clarification of unique aspects of engineering pedagogy; and advocacy for K–12 engineering education. Based on this collective work, a second symposium was conducted two years later to develop research and practice agendas, specifically for teacher professional development. Research priorities were clustered into categories, including context, inputs, process, content, and outcomes. The recommendations for practice were clustered around policy, access, diversity, curriculum, pedagogy, pre-service, and school reform issues (Illinois State University, 2007).
Based on the broad review and synthesis of the body of work presented in this chapter, a broad set of recommendations for research and practice for teacher professional development at the secondary level are offered. These are as follows:
1. A body of research using rigorous methods needs to be developed specific to K–12 engineering to help the field better understand such things as how teachers and students learn engineering concepts, effective pedagogy, teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge, and motivation of diverse populations. This research base should drive professional development practice.
2. Significant work remains to be done to formalize and deploy an effective, coherent professional development agenda for engineering education. Thoughtful analysis of the goals of engineering education and how it informs the design of the professional development should be undertaken by professional development leaders, teachers, and administrators.
3. There is a need to think and work integratively across the STEM disciplines within the professional development environment, but also keeping in mind and addressing teachers’ unique disciplinary needs. Educational policymakers will also need to come to understand how closely woven technology and engineering are with science and mathematics as they reconfigure curriculum and teacher preparation.
4. While some efforts are being made to increase access, significantly more needs to be done to address the needs of underrepresented minorities and females. Thoughtful decisions need to be made about the content, pedagogy, and activities used to deliver engineering-oriented professional development to ensure the engagement of the full spectrum of students.
5. Engineering professional development efforts should develop and implement more collaborative models that utilize effective practices, such as a focus on student learning, extended duration, coherence to and alignment with the instructional goals, and school improvement efforts, and curriculum materials.
6. Engineering professional development should be rooted in specified engineering content. Effective professional development is marked by an emphasis on developing teachers’ content knowledge, as well as an understanding of how students learn the content.
In summary, this chapter addressed the significant contextual, process, and content issues identified in the current research studies and the authors’ own work in secondary level engineering professional development. Moving forward, there appears to be a great need to enhance the engineering conceptual base and pay more attention to integrating best practices for professional development, while also maintaining the distinctiveness of the academic disciplines. Research-based models of professional development need to be developed in order to best address the particular needs of teachers being prepared to deliver engineering at the secondary level. The future implementation of engineering at the pre-collegiate level requires careful and thoughtful research, planning, and development if engineering is to become an essential and integral part of the curriculum.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the National Center for Engineering and Technology Education (NCETE), which funded the Daugherty (2009), Daugherty and Custer (2010), and Custer, Daugherty, and Meyer (2010) studies. The authors would also like to thank the individuals involved with both symposia for their contributions. The Professional Development for Engineering and Technology: A National Symposium, conducted February 2007 in Dallas, Texas, and the Symposium on Professional Development for Engineering and Technology Education: An Action Agenda, conducted June 2009, were supported through a grant from the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 0533572).
REFERENCES
Asunda, P. A., & Hill, R. B. (2007). A multiple case study of faculty and teacher perceptions of NCETE professional development workshops on engineering design content. Retrieved from http://ncete.org/flash/pdfs/Multisite_Case_Study_Asunda.pdf
Autenrieth, R., Butler-Purry, K., Page, C., Hurtado, L. D., & Welch, J. (2009). Enrichment experiences in engineering (E3) for teachers’ summer research program. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Austin, TX. June 14-17.
Avery, Z. K. (2009). Effects of professional development on infusing engineering design into high school science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) curricula. Retrieved from http://ncete.org/flash/pdfs/Avery_Dissertation_Final.pdf
Baker, D., Krause, S., Yaşar, Ş., Roberts, C., & Robinson-Kurpius, S. (2007). An intervention to address gender issues in a course on design, engineering, and technology for science educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(3), 213–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00931.x
Benenson, G., & Neujahr, J. L. (2007). Unraveling a knotty design challenge: PD for engineering K-12. NAE/NRC Committee on K-12 Engineering Education. Washington, DC. October 22. Unpublished.
Birman, B., Desimone, L., Porter, A., & Garet, M. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33.
Boettcher, B., Carlson, B., Cyr, M., & Shanbhag, S. (2005). Engineering implementation in grades 6–12: Evaluation of the effectiveness of a workshop model. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Portland, OR. June 12-15.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x
Childress, V., & Rhodes, C. (2008). Engineering student outcomes for grades 9–12. Technology Teacher, 5(7), 5–12.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2001). Beyond certainty: Taking an inquiry stance on practice. In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Teachers caught in the action: Professional development that matters (pp. 45–58). New York: Teachers College Press.
Cullum, J., Hailey, C., Householder, D., Merrill, C., & Dorward, J. (2008). Formative evaluation of a professional development program for high school teachers infusing engineering design into the classroom. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Pittsburgh, PA. June 22-25.
Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J. L., & Meyer, J. P. (2010). Formulating a concept base for secondary level engineering: A review and synthesis. Journal of Technology Education, 22(1), 4–21.
Daugherty, J. L. (2009). Engineering professional development design for secondary school teachers: A. multiple case study. Journal of Technology Education, 21(1), 5–19.
Daugherty, J. L., & Custer, R. L. (2010). Secondary level engineering professional development: Content, pedagogy, and challenges. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9136-2
Dearing, B. M., & Daugherty, M. K. (2004). Delivering engineering content in technology education. Technology Teacher, 64(3), 8–11.
Denson, C., Mentzer, N., & Cullum, J. (2009). High school teacher engineering design lesson planning through professional development. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Austin, TX. June 14-17.
Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/01623737024002081
Didion, C., & Peterman, K. (2008). Increasing the impact of your program through needs assessment surveys. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Pittsburgh, PA. June 22-25.
Evans, L. (2002). What is teacher development? Oxford Review of Education, 28(1), 123–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03054980120113670
Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00059-3
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
Gordon, S. P. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering learning communities. Boston: Pearson.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 748–750.
Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements in student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 17(4), 34–38.
Hacker, M., de Vries, M., & Rossouw, A. (2009). CCETE project: Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education. Retrieved from http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/Academics/Colleges/SOEAHS/ctl/CTL_Edu_Initiatives_CCETE_revised.pdf
Harris, K. S., & Rogers, G. E. (2008). Secondary engineering competencies: A Delphi study of engineering faculty. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 45(1), 5–25.
High, K., Antonenko, P., Damron, R., Stansbury, S., Hudson, G., Dockers, J., & Peterson, A. (2009). The effect of a teacher professional development integrated curriculum workshop on perceptions of design, engineering, and technology experiences. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Austin, TX. June 14-17.
Hill, H. C. (2007). Learning in the teaching workforce. Future of Children, 17(1), 111–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/foc.2007.0004
Hunter, K., Matson, J., & Elkins, S. (2006). Preparing for emerging technologies: A grass-roots approach to enhancing K-12 education. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Chicago, IL. June 18-21.
Hunter, K., Matson, J., Phelps, M., & Loutzenheiser, R. (2010). Professional development for science, technology, and mathematics teachers. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Louisville, KY. June 20-23.
Illinois State University (2007). Proceedings and future agenda. National Symposium Professional Development for Engineering and Technology. Dallas, TX. February 11–13. Retrieved from http://conferences.illinoisstate.edu/NSA/homepage.html
International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
Iskander, M., Kapila, V., & Kriftcher, N. (2010). Outreach to K-12 teachers: Workshop in instrumentation, sensors, and engineering. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 136(2), 102–111.
Johnson, C. C. (2006). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106(3), 150–161.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Kimmel, H., Rockland, R., Hirsch, L., Burr-Alexander, L., & Carpinelli, J. (2010). A capstone approach to exploring teacher outcomes from professional development. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Louisville, KY.
Krause, S., Culbertson, R., & Carlson, M. (2008). Attitude shifts in high school math and science teacher practice through connection math, science, and engineering in a math science partnership: Project pathways. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Pittsburgh, PA. June 22-25.
Kuenzi, J. K. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Congressional Research Service Report. Order Code RL33434.
Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design as content. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 37–54.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Lumpp, J., & Bradley, K. (2006). Math and science across the board: Connecting professional development to classroom practices via an embedded research initiative. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Chicago, IL. June 18-21.
McAlister, B. (2005). Are technology education teachers prepared to tech engineering design and analytical methods? International Technology Education Association Conference. Kansas City, MO.
Mouza, C. (2009). Does research-based professional development make a difference? A longitudinal. investigation of teacher learning in technology integration. Teachers College Record, 111(5), 1195–1241.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Issue brief: Characteristics of public school teachers’ professional development activities: 1999–2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
National Staff Development Council (2001). Standards for staff development. Retrieved from http://learningforward.org/standards
Parise, L. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How form and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers’ practice. Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/648981
Park Rogers, M. A., Abell, S. K., Marra, R. M., Arbaugh, F., Hutchins, K. L., & Cole, J. S. (2010). Orientations to science teacher professional development: An exploratory study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(3), 309–328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9179-y
Pelletier, M., & Chanley, P. (2007). Building math skills in context: Integrating high school mathematics with engineering and technology. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Honolulu, HI.
Pelletier, M., Kibbe, W., & Chanley, P. (2006). Embedded computer systems and phonotics: A professional development course for middle and high school teachers. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Chicago, IL. June 18-21.
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308221
Reeves, R., Ross, J., & Bayles, T. (2010). A novel approach to professional development. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Louisville, KY. June 20-23.
Schreiber, R., Crooks, D., & Stern, P. N. (1997). Qualitative meta-analysis. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Completing a qualitative project: Details and dialogue (pp. 311–326). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shumway, S., Berrett, J., Swapp, A., Terry, R., & Erekson, T. (2007). A successful professional development activity to infuse engineering content for Utah 9–12 teachers. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Honolulu, HI. June 24-27.
Silk, J. D., & Schunn, C. (2008). Core concepts in engineering as a basis for understanding and improving K-12 engineering education in the United States. National Academy of Engineering/ National Research Council Workshop on K-12 Engineering Education. Washington, DC.
Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14(3), 331–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904800014003001
Tufenkjian, M., & Lipton, E. (2007). A professional development model to infuse engineering design content into the high school curriculum. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Honolulu, HI. June 24-27.
Wallace, M. R. (2009). Making sense of the links: Professional development, teacher practices, and student achievement. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 573–596.
Wicklein, R. C. (2006). Five good reasons for engineering design as the focus for technology education. Technology Teacher, 65(7), 25–29.
Willis, B. F. (2005). High heels—high tech: A professional development opportunity for educators. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Portland, OR. June 12-15.